TOPSGRUP ELECTRONICS SYSTEMS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 8(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2009-10 is allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Amit Shuklam/S. Topsgrup Electronic Systems Income Tax Officer-8(3)(3) Ltd. (Previsously Tops Sequipment Ltd.) Àayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 5, Royal Palms Golf & Country Club Vs. Mumbai 400020 Aarey Milk Colony, Goregaon (E) Mumbai 400065 Pan - Aaact3291K Appellant Respondent

Transfer Pricing income being affected due Provisions are not to a transaction on applicable. capital account ....” The rest of the decisions rely on the decision of Vodafone India Services and therefore the same holds good for all of the decisions. The learned A.R. for the assessee submitted that in the case of PMP Auto Components relied on by the learned

DIALOGIC NETWORKS (INDIA) P. LTD,PUNE vs. DCIT CIR 3(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Amarjit Singhit(Tp)A No.1324/Mum/2014 (Assessment Year 2009-10) Dialogic Networks (India) Private Limited, 3Rd Floor, Pride Purple Coronet, S.No.287/2, Baner Road, Opp Food Bazar, Pune Pan:Aabcv9446M ...... Appellant Vs. The Dcit, Cir.3(3), Mumbai. .... Respondent Appellant By : S/Shri Ajit Tolani/Darpan Kirpalani Respondent By : Shri N.K.Chand Date Of Hearing : 27/01/2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 31/01/2017

transfer pricing assessment. Thus, the Assessing 24 IT(TP)A No.1324/Mum/2014 (Assessment Year 2009-10) Officer/Transfer Pricing Officer is directed to exclude the Rev IT Systems Ltd. from the final set of comparables. 15.1 The only other plea of the assessee is for inclusion of Allsec Technologies Ltd.; R Systems International; and, Shreejal Info Hubs Ltd. in the final

SHELL INDIA MARKETS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3(4), MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER\n&\nMS. PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member)

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO)/Hon'ble\nDRP have erred in completing the assessment of the Appellant\nunder Section 143(3) r.w.s.144C(13) and 144B of the Act,\nwherein the total income is assessed at Rs.755,61,45,499 in\npursuance to the Directions issued by the DRP, as against Rs.\n215,80,20,610 returned income.\nTRANSFER PRICING GROUNDS

TPG GROWTH II MAKETS PTE LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(1)(2), MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No. 4 raised by the Appellant is partly allowed

Section 92CA(3) of the Act, and proposed transfer pricing adjustment of INR 1,99,40,70,269/-. Thereafter, the TPO passed

DOW AGROSCIENCES INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT RG 14(1)(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Ravish Sooddow Agrosciences India Private Acit, Range-14(1)(2) Limited, 1St Floor, Block B, Room No. 460, Godrej It Park, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Pirojshanagar, Vikhroli (W) Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai – 400079 Pan – Aaacd3812H (Appellant) (Respondent) It(Tp)A. No.203/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) Dow Agrosciences India Private Dcit, Range-14(1)(1) Limited, 1St Floor, Block B, Room No. 460, Godrej It Park, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Pirojshanagar, Vikhroli (W) Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai – 400079 Pan – Aaacd3813H (Appellant) (Respondent) It(Tp)A. No.1528/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dow Agrosciences India Private Income Tax Officer , Range-14(1)(3) Limited, 1St Floor, Block B, Room No. 458, Godrej It Park, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Pirojshanagar, Vikhroli (W) Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai – 400079 Pan – Aaacd3813H (Appellant) (Respondent)

269) (Bom.) (e) Firmenich Aromatics Vs. DCIT (ITA No. 2590/Mum/2017)” Accordingly, in the backdrop of our aforesaid deliberations, the transfer pricing adjustment carried out by the TPO as regards the intra-group services received by the assessee from its AEs cannot be sustained and is liable to be struck down. 29. Although, we have struck down the transfer pricing adjustment

DOW AGROSCIENCES INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 3(1)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Ravish Sooddow Agrosciences India Private Asst. Commissioner Of Limited, 1St Floor, Block B, Income Tax-3(1)(1) Godrej It Park, [Income-Tax Officer-14(1)(3)] Room No. 458, Vs. Pirojshanagar, Vikhroli (W) Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 079 Mumbai – 400 020

269) (Bom.) (e) Firmenich Aromatics Vs. DCIT (ITA No. 2590/Mum/2017)” Accordingly, in the backdrop of our aforesaid deliberations, the transfer pricing adjustment carried out by the TPO as regards the intra-group services received by the assessee from its AEs cannot be sustained and is liable to be struck down. 29. Although, we have struck down the transfer pricing adjustment

RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

price (ALP) of interest chargeable in respect of share application money refunded by the AE by adopting fixed rate from Bloomberg database. 15. Erred in re-characterizing the transaction as being in the nature of loan financing on which interest is chargeable without appreciating that the amounts were refunded within 101 days due to business considerations. 16. Failed to appreciate

RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

price (ALP) of interest chargeable in respect of share application money refunded by the AE by adopting fixed rate from Bloomberg database. 15. Erred in re-characterizing the transaction as being in the nature of loan financing on which interest is chargeable without appreciating that the amounts were refunded within 101 days due to business considerations. 16. Failed to appreciate

DCIT-3(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

price (ALP) of interest chargeable in respect of share application money refunded by the AE by adopting fixed rate from Bloomberg database. 15. Erred in re-characterizing the transaction as being in the nature of loan financing on which interest is chargeable without appreciating that the amounts were refunded within 101 days due to business considerations. 16. Failed to appreciate

DCIT- 3(4) , MUMBAI vs. M/S RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

price (ALP) of interest chargeable in respect of share application money refunded by the AE by adopting fixed rate from Bloomberg database. 15. Erred in re-characterizing the transaction as being in the nature of loan financing on which interest is chargeable without appreciating that the amounts were refunded within 101 days due to business considerations. 16. Failed to appreciate

AGRAWAL DISTILLERIES PVT LTD,INDORE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), DELHI

section\n92C while arriving at the ALP of the payment of royalty to Nil, the transfer pricing\nadjustment made by the TPO in respect thereof ought to be deleted.\n8. The Ld. CIT-DR vehemently argued and stated that the Royalty increasing year\nafter year.\nPayment of Royalty for the use of 'Vodafone' and 'Essar' Trademark and Trade\nname\nThe

VODAFONE DIGILINK LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee Ground Nos 9 & 10 is allowed

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjeeand\Nshri Prabhash Shankar\Nita No.1169/Mum/2014\N(Assessment Year: 2009-10)\Nm/S Vodafone Digilink Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income\Nlimited,\Ntax, Cir.17(1), New Delhi\Nc-48, Okhla Industrial Area,\Nphase-Ii, New Delhi-110 020\Npan: Aaaca3202D\Nappellant\Nrespondent\Nassessee By\N:\Nshri Percy J. Pardiwalla/Wshri\Nketan Ved\Nrespondent By\N:\Nms. Vatsala Jha (Pcit)\Ndate Of Hearing\N:\N23/12/2024\Ndate Of Pronouncement\N:\N12/02/2025\Norder\Nper Anikesh Banerjee:\Ninstant Appeal Of The Assessee Was Filed Against The Order Of The Learned\Ndispute Resolution Panel-Ii, New Delhi-02 [For Brevity, ‘Ld.Drp') Passed Under\Nsection 144C(5) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Brevity, ‘The Act'),\Ndated21/11/2013 For A.Y. 2009-10. The Impugned Order Was Emanated From The\Ndraft Assessment Order U/S 144C(1) R.W.S.143(3) Of The Actdated 28/03/2013 Of\Nthe Ld.Dcit, Circle-17(1), New Delhi (For Brevity The Ld. Ao).\N2\Nita No.1169/Mum/2014\Nvodafone Digilink Limited\N2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: -\N“The Appellant Respectfully Submits That:\Non The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Dispute\Nresolution Panel -11. New Delhi (Drp\") Has Erred In Passing The Order Under\Nsection 144C(5) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act\"), Partly Confirming The\Nadjustments Proposed By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 17(1)\Nnew Delhi ("Ao') In The Draft Assessment Order & The Learned Ao Has\Naccordingly Erred In Passing The Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) Read With\Nsection 144C Of The Act.\Neach Of The Ground Is Referred To Separately, Which May Kindly Be Considered\Nindependent Of Each Other.\N1. On Amortization Of Revenue Based License Fee U/S 35Abb Of The Act\N1.

section\n92C while arriving at the ALP of the payment of royalty at Nil, the transfer pricing\nadjustment made by the TPO in respect thereof ought to be deleted.\n8. The Ld. CIT-DR vehemently argued and stated that the Royalty increasing year\nafter year.\nPayment of Royalty for the use of 'Vodafone' and 'Essar' Trademark and Trade\nname\nThe

DCIT 8(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. SONATA SOFTWARE LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and appeal by the Assessee appeal by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Hon’Ble & Shri Pawan Singh, Hon’Ble] I.T.A. No. 594/Mum/2017 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit 8(2)(2), Mumbai……...........…...…………..….....................................................................Appellant Room No. 348, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. Vs. M/S. Sonata Software Ltd……………….......…..…………………....….......................................Respondent 208, T.V. Industrial Estate, S.K. Ahire Marg, Worli, Mumbai – 400 030. [Pan: Aabcs 8459 D

Transfer Pricing – 11(4), Mumbai (‘TPO’) to determine the arm’s length price in relation to the Mumbai (‘TPO’) to determine the arm’s length price in relation to the Mumbai (‘TPO’) to determine the arm’s length price in relation to the international transactions entered by the appellant. The TPO vide order international transactions entered by the appellant

SONATA SOFTWARE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RANGE - 7(2) PRESENTLY ASSESSED WITH DCIT 8(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and appeal by the Assessee appeal by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Hon’Ble & Shri Pawan Singh, Hon’Ble] I.T.A. No. 594/Mum/2017 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit 8(2)(2), Mumbai……...........…...…………..….....................................................................Appellant Room No. 348, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. Vs. M/S. Sonata Software Ltd……………….......…..…………………....….......................................Respondent 208, T.V. Industrial Estate, S.K. Ahire Marg, Worli, Mumbai – 400 030. [Pan: Aabcs 8459 D

Transfer Pricing – 11(4), Mumbai (‘TPO’) to determine the arm’s length price in relation to the Mumbai (‘TPO’) to determine the arm’s length price in relation to the Mumbai (‘TPO’) to determine the arm’s length price in relation to the international transactions entered by the appellant. The TPO vide order international transactions entered by the appellant

DIMEXON DIAMONDS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CENT. CIR 1(4) , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

section 92C, the\nother method for determination of the arm's length price in relation to an\ninternational transaction or a specified domestic transaction shall be any\nmethod which takes into account the price which has been charged or paid, or\nwould have been charged or paid, for the same or similar uncontrolled\ntransaction, with or between non-associated enterprises

ACIT 10(3), MUMBAI vs. COLGATE PALM OLIVE (I) LTD, NAVI MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No. 6073/Mum/2014 & Cross Objection No.243/Mum/2014 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Assistant Commissioner Of Colgate Palmolive (India) Limited Colgate Research Centre Income Tax 10(3) (Osd) बनाम/ Main Street Room No.403,4Th Floor Hiranandani Gardens, Powai Vs. Aaykar Bhavan Mumbai – 400 076 Mumbai – 400 020 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccc-4309-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No. 2778/Mum/2011 & Cross Objection No.126/Mum/2011 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) Colgate Palmolive (India) Limited Assistant Commissioner Of Colgate Research Centre Income Tax 10(3) बनाम/ Main Street Room No.451,4Th Floor Hiranandani Gardens, Powai Vs. Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road Mumbai – 400 076 Mumbai – 400 020 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccc-4309-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

Transfer Pricing [TP] study carried out by the assessee to submit that there were inter-company transactions relating to AMP expenditure within the meaning of Section 92B. It was fairly submitted that since Ld. TPO has not segregated the routine and non-routine AMP expenditure and applied Bright Line Test [BLT] and therefore, the issue may be remitted back

ASST CIT 10(3) (OSD), MUMBAI vs. COLGATE PALMOLIVE (I) LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No. 6073/Mum/2014 & Cross Objection No.243/Mum/2014 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Assistant Commissioner Of Colgate Palmolive (India) Limited Colgate Research Centre Income Tax 10(3) (Osd) बनाम/ Main Street Room No.403,4Th Floor Hiranandani Gardens, Powai Vs. Aaykar Bhavan Mumbai – 400 076 Mumbai – 400 020 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccc-4309-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No. 2778/Mum/2011 & Cross Objection No.126/Mum/2011 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) Colgate Palmolive (India) Limited Assistant Commissioner Of Colgate Research Centre Income Tax 10(3) बनाम/ Main Street Room No.451,4Th Floor Hiranandani Gardens, Powai Vs. Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road Mumbai – 400 076 Mumbai – 400 020 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccc-4309-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

Transfer Pricing [TP] study carried out by the assessee to submit that there were inter-company transactions relating to AMP expenditure within the meaning of Section 92B. It was fairly submitted that since Ld. TPO has not segregated the routine and non-routine AMP expenditure and applied Bright Line Test [BLT] and therefore, the issue may be remitted back

DCIT 10(3), MUMBAI vs. COLGATE PALMOLIVE (INDIA) LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman () & Shri Ravish Sood () Ita No.1431 /Mum/2014 (Assessment Year: 2009-10) Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd. Addl. Commissioner Of Income- Colgate Research Centre, Main Vs. Tax-10(3) Street, Hiranandani Gardens, Powai, Mumbai – 400076

Transfer Pricing provisions. 39. On the other hand, ld. DR supported the order of AO/TPO and submitted that to consider marketing expenses the cost plus method could be applied. Since TPO has not followed any specific method as 2006-07 is the first year, the matter could be restored to TPO to decide it afresh after considering the guidelines laid